Accuracy testing of Alox vs 45-45-10

  • 9.4K Views
  • Last Post 08 August 2015
Jackpine posted this 18 August 2014

I have searched existing posts and not found anything, so if I missed it I apologize and maybe someone can give me links.   I cast primarily for long range rifle shooting in 30-30, 38-55 and 45-70 and have been very happy with results using Lee Liq Alox but recently order some Xlox from White Label and decided to get a bottle of their 45-45-10.   Everything I can find seems to point to folks using this because they feel it is less tacky and dries more quickly, but I cannot find anything about performance differences between the two.  Has anyone done any side by side comparisons for accuracy and/or velocity using identical loadings?   Thanks, Jackpine    

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
onondaga posted this 18 August 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=7961>Jackpine

I believe the only shooters that will find an accuracy difference between LLA, XLOX and 45:45:10 are shooters that have poor fitting bullets. The reason won't be the lube either, the reason will be the bullet fit and alloy.

Good fitting bullets aren't fussy about bullet lube at all, even ear wax is fine. There is no magic lube that compensates for bullets that don't fit chamber throats and lube doesn't add bullet alloy diameter to bullets that are too small. Also, no lube changes Alloy BHN of bullets that aren't the right BHN for the load level.

I use White Label 45:45:10 tumble lube to load pressures and velocities beyond reason for cast bullets and find no limitation other than bullet alloy selection by load pressure, bore condition and bullet fit to chamber throat. I believe lube is the least important factor for accuracy when everything else is correct.

Gary

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 19 August 2014

Gary,   Thanks for your reply.  I agree with you that bullet diameter, relative to bore size is very important.  However, I also know from experience, that two bullets of the same diameter, with the same hardness, driven at similar velocities, can show radically different levels of accuracy.    How much actual comparing of lubes, keeping all other variables constant, to see if accuracy and velocity remain the same with changes in lubes have you done.   Also, what do you consider “beyond reason” as far as velocity and pressure?   Thanks, Jackpine

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 19 August 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=7961>Jackpine,

I am always testing with cast bullets and shoot about 100 pounds of cast bullets a year, but a little light this year as I had a stroke. Started casting bullets in 1957 and for many years used pressure lubes of many varieties. When Lee introduced tumble lube I immediately tried it and never went back to pressure lube again. Lube never made a difference to me for accuracy. Bullet fit, alloy and bore condition have always made the only significant difference for accuracy in every caliber I have ever worked with. I even use LLA or 45:45:10 on my muzzle loading bullets.

I have tested 45:45:10 to 2650 fps in .223 Rem with gas checked #2 alloy bullets. I ran out of accuracy at 2550 but still kept going to try to achieve lube failure. There was no lube failure at 2650 that so many shooters complain about. The load at 2550 fps groups 1MOA at 100 yards. I hunt small game like coyote, snapping turtles fox and woodchuck with the load from an NEF Ultra Varmint Handi Rifle. The bullets are so large in diameter  that they slide into the throat with a little pushing needed. Smaller bullets, and I've tried them shoot all over the place with the same load. This is typical across the board for me from .223 to .458 Win Mag and .500 S&W Mag rifle. The .223 is a fine shooting rifle for me with cast.

I have another rifle that shoots as well with cast, a Remington Spartan single shot in 7.62X39 with a polished, chrome lined bore. All my other rifles will shoot 5 shot, under 1 inch groups at 50 yards consistently with at least one hunting load. They all have the bullet sliding into the throat fit, and smaller diameter bullets make all of them less accurate.

All my bores are polished also and I believe that is an important factor  for cast bullets. Rough bores and average quality production bores will pull bullet lube off bullets. I believe that is a key factor that causes so many to mention lube failure even when bullets seem to fit well. A average or coarse finished production bore will abrade lube off of bullets. You are new and may have not read my Bore Polishing Method that I developed and contributed to this forum:

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/viewtopic.php?id=8364&forumid=63

If you have a rifle that is sensitive to different lubes, I recommend you polish your bore to make it non sensitive to lube types and re-check your bullet fit trying to get a throat sliding fit of your bullets.

Gary

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 19 August 2014

Gary,   You jumped over a lot of ground on that reply and I have more questions.    Am I understanding you correctly that when you refer to “bullet fit” you want the bullet diameter to exceed the throat diameter, without consideration of bore size?  What are the actual differences in your guns between throat diameters and bore diameters.  Has all your testing been at 50 and 100 yards, or have you also tested at some long ranges? What kind of powder are you shooting in your muzzle loaders?   With your polishing method, what kind of velocity differences do you get before and after polishing.   Also, still wondering if there is anyone out there that has done side by side comparisons of bench tested accuracy and chronographed velocities of the two lubes.   Thanks again, Jackpine  

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 19 August 2014

Gary,   Forgot to ask:  Lyman #2 can mean a lot of different things.  Just wondering what yours is made of up and what the BHN is.   Jackpine

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 19 August 2014

Jackpine

"Forgot to ask:  Lyman #2 can mean a lot of different things." No, Lyman Lyman #2 only means one thing. 90% lead, 5% Tin and 5% Antimony. Lyman #2 has been the first choice for cast hunting bullets for well over 100 years. THe Tin content gives it superior ductility and it does not fragment on impact with game, the hardness from the Antimony makes it hard enough for hunting level loads. 1,000 foot pounds  impact is all that is needed for #2 alloy bullets to ecpand double in caliber and lose zero % weight.

I  prefer to get guaranteed accurate to formula certified Lyman #2 alloy from RotoMetals for all my hunting bullets:

http://www.rotometals.com/product-p/lyman2bulletmetal.htm>http://www.rotometals.com/product-p/lyman2bulletmetal.htm

I make a practice alloy the same BHN 15 as #2 alloy with equal parts pure Lead and Linotype. It has the same POI at the range but it uses more Antimpny and less Tin to get the BHN15 like Lyman #2. My practice alloy is very close to traditional Hardball pistol alloy. it is not as ductile as Lyman #2 and will fragment on impact with game so I don't use it for hunting, just practice and recreation.

Gary

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 19 August 2014

Jackpine

"Am I understanding you correctly that when you refer to “bullet fit” you want the bullet diameter to exceed the throat diameter, without consideration of bore size?  What are the actual differences in your guns between throat diameters and bore diameters."  I completely ignore bore diameter and give it no consideration.. My cast bullets, bare bullet diameters with no lube have a sliding fit size to the chamber throat, fitted for each gun individually.  All of my bullet sizing dies have been custom honed by me for this fit.

" Has all your testing been at 50 and 100 yards, or have you also tested at some long ranges? What kind of powder are you shooting in your muzzle loaders?

I don't test beyond 150 yards as I don't take big game hunting shots farther than that. I use Alliant BMZ substitute powder in my ML rifles and earned two second place wins in this forum's Postal Matches last season with the Alliant BMZ and a Lyman Great Plains 50 Cal percussion rifle. I have in the past been a competitor in long range center fire unlimited class to 1,000 yards with jacketed bullets. My lifetime best is a 5 shot group of 6.82” at 1,000 yards.

"With your polishing method, what kind of velocity differences do you get before and after polishing."

Plus 50-100 fps difference chronographed after polishing.   "Also, still wondering if there is anyone out there that has done side by side comparisons of bench tested accuracy and chronographed velocities of the two lubes."

I don't see sufficient merit for that. You should try that after you get bullet fit, alloy selection and bore condition worked out.

  I am very rigid and meticulous in my methodology to achieve accuracy with cast bullets. This is from a lifetime of enjoyment shooting them since 1957. I do what works for me, your results may vary.

Gary

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 20 August 2014

Calm down Gary.  I asked about Lyman #2 because I was curious about what you were using.  Lyman #2 is often used to refer to mixtures of different components.  While the Lyman manual lists your formula, it also lists two homemade mixtures for Lyman #2, one using Linotype includes pure lead, plus 50/50 solder.  Also, I doubt that the term Lyman #2 has been used for more than a hundred years, as I don't believe Lyman was involved with bullet casting a hundred years ago.   Thanks for your other opinions.    If there is anyone else out there that has done any actual side by side comparisons of Alox and 45-45-10, especially with heavy bullets at long ranges (at least 300, hopefully 500 to 1000) I would like to hear from you.   Jackpine

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 20 August 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=7961>Jackpine

I am familiar with the alternate formulas, Lyman history and their formulas. Specifically mentioned by Lyman is that the alternative formulas “approximate” Lyman #2, they don't duplicate it. The alternate formulas are given specifically because Antimony that is raw and pure is difficult to alloy so Lyman also recommended using Antimony rich alloys plus Lead and Tin to more easily “Approximate” Lyman #2 for the home bullet caster.

Check Your history. Early cartridge ammo commercially available in the US specifically promoted the use of Lyman #2 alloy for their bullets including Remington and Winchester ammunition over 100 years ago. The packaging of the early cartridge ammo prominently has printed on it Lyman #2 alloy as used for the bullets of the cartridges. Lyman #2 was particularly promoted for the earliest commercial Lever action rifle ammunition. You can find these cartridges and their date verified packages at gun shows with collectable ammunition items.

Gary

Attached Files

bandmiller2 posted this 20 August 2014

Gary, have you ever tried no lube on your well fitting bullets and smoothed bores.?? Frank C.

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 20 August 2014

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=5654>bandmiller2

 Yes, I shoot the Lee TL 314-90-SWC sized .3125” and with no lube at 950 fps from my Remington Spartan single shot 7.62X39. There is no leading with the load with bullets cast from either pure lead or Lyman #2. I tried this at the suggestion of member Ed Harris after I developed the load with lubed bullets...he was right! no lube was needed  for the sub-sonic load.

Gary

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 20 August 2014

Exactly my point.  There are, as you put it, several alternative formulas, referred to as Lyman #2, which is why I asked a pretty simple question.  Sorry if I somehow buised your ego.   I will let you come up with facts back up your own statements about the age of the term Lyman #2.  While it is possible that you are correct, it does not seem real likely or logical.  Everyone knows that  Lyman was a gun sight company.  I don't think they were involved in bullet casting at all until they bought Ideal in either the 20's or the 30's and for quite some time continued to sell those products still using the ideal name.  I believe it was some time after that before they started putting their own name on molds and other loading equipment.  As such, it does not make a lot of sense that they would have developed an alloy formula before they were in that business.    Jackpine  

Attached Files

j35nut posted this 21 August 2014

If you can believe the printed word 1925 was the year Lyman took over Ideal

Anyone have have the #27 or 28,29 or 30 handbook, I would guess #2 alloy would show up in one of those.

-------J

Attached Files

norm posted this 22 August 2014

I have a couple of Lyman handbooks from the 1950's and in those Lyman No. 2 is listed as 10 parts lead,1 part tin,1 part antimony. A little different than the current mix 90% lead, 5% tin and 5% antimony. Lyman sold No.4 and No. 6 alloy. No. 4 was 20 parts lead and 1 part tin and No. 6 was 40 part lead and 1 part tin.

Attached Files

Jackpine posted this 22 August 2014

J,  Thanks for clarifying the date Lyman acquired Ideal.  I knew it was either the middle of the roaring twenties or middle of the Depression.  That's why I was sure that the term Lyman #2 was not a hundred years old.  Somewhere I read an extensive narrative going back to the start of the company.  One of the things I recall was that the original Mr Lyman was so convinced that his sight could improve accuracy so much, that if the armies of all countries would adopt his sight, war would become so deadly, that no country would be willing to initiate one.  Didn't work for Dr Gatling either!!!!  I think the story I read also talked about how they put a lot of effort into improving the idea manual, but did not do much to the products themselves and basically just continued the Saeco line and at sometime not long before WW II they almost closed down the reloading part of the business and would have if not for the efforts of either a son or grandson.  The more I think about this, the more I want to figure out where this story is and reread it.   Norm, that is very interesting and surprising.  My first thought was that it was a misprint in the handbook and was meant to show twenty parts lead, instead of ten, but if that ratio shows up in multiple years handbooks, that speculation is likely wrong.  That is an increase of two thirds in the percentage of both tin and antimony which would result in a considerable increase in hardness.  I would think the BHN of that alloy would be at least in the low twenties or possible even mid twenties.  Maybe someone out there has any other documented info on when the change in ratios was done and any documentation on why it was changed, keeping the #2 designation.  They obviously had nothing against putting their name on different alloys and I wonder why they did not add another on, instead of radically changing an existing one.   Jackpine

Attached Files

Duane Mellenbruch posted this 22 August 2014

The Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, 3rd edition has an article that begins on page 33, “The Early Years, John Barlow and Ideal: 1884-1925".  This gives some of the history of the early years, but not in the detail that you mention.  This would suggest that after 1925, the  Lyman name came into use.

Attached Files

Millelacs posted this 22 August 2014

I have a Lyman 5 1/2” x 8” spiral bound Lyman “Handbook of Cast Bullets” (possibly one that  you mentioned) that I can not find a publication date, which lists:

Quote

Ideal Bullet Metal is available with the following composition:

Ideal No 2 - 10 parts lead, 1 part tin, 1 part antimony. Ideal No 4 - 1 part tin, 20 parts lead. Ideal No 6 - 1 part tin, 40 parts lead.

End Quote

This would lead one to believe that Ideal developed the standard alloy formulas, and at some point Lyman put it's name on them.  Some time after Lyman took over Ideal.

norm wrote: I have a couple of Lyman handbooks from the 1950's and in those Lyman No. 2 is listed as 10 parts lead,1 part tin,1 part antimony. A little different than the current mix 90% lead, 5% tin and 5% antimony. Lyman sold No.4 and No. 6 alloy. No. 4 was 20 parts lead and 1 part tin and No. 6 was 40 part lead and 1 part tin.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 24 August 2014

my ” the ideal hand book number 34 ” says ideal #2 is 90-5-5. of course in the very next paragraph it mentions as far as hardness is concerned, it is equivalent to 10 to one lead to tin.

looks like the book was written by committee.

so cool to read these old books ...it also mentions groove dia. of 280 ross is 0.289 to 0.290 ...

funny it doesn't mention pearl harbor ...

ken

Attached Files

POTATO JOHN posted this 20 April 2015

The thread of this forum was supposed to be Alox! All of you geniuses seem not to have read that! POTATO JOHN

Attached Files

mtngun posted this 20 April 2015

http://www.mountainmolds.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=502>Liquid Alox vs. 45/45/10 (and other lubes)

The 45/45/10 had a slight edge in my test but the difference may not have been significant, and that's just one load in one rifle.

Rooster Jacket was on par with 45/45/10 and LLA and has the advantage of drying faster and being less messy.

None of the tumblelubes performed as well as a good conventional lube like Rooster HVR.   Yes, Virginia, lube makes a difference.

"Lube failure” is not a particularly meaningful criteria.   Is there a significant difference in accuracy and velocity, and does it maintain that accuracy and velocity indefinitely without cleaning?   

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close